Based on the descriptions of people in this thread at least, it sounds like infantry combat in vCOH was less dynamic and kind of boring.
I guess its another layer of dynamics. It obviously didnt focus on movement for the sake of movement, but made other tactical considerations all the more important. Throwing that grenade wasnt as much of a nobrainer as it is now, as you would need to consider that closing that gap might cost you dearly.
It played and looked a lot more like a firefight rather than a streed dance face-off  |
I agree with everything this guy says.
Also, someone else earlier wrote this too but squads need to stop jumping back into Molotov flame because of auto-cover seek. It's just stupid in so many ways.
Glad to hear.
Does anyone know why the infantrycombat was altered the way it was? Was this a request by the community or is it simply a result of the new developmentteam having a different philosophy than the team behind vCOH? |
So you think that assaulting from the front and throwing a grenade is at the very least equally as effective as a flanking maneuver?
Not equally, but not much difference either. |
In regards to the "positioning" of infantry units vs. grenades. The amount of "clickiness" or "micro" that the use of grenades adds is negligible unless you are in the mindset of "I'm going to send my infantry to this cover here and they should have the advantage". Instead think ahead. OK so if I move my infantry to this light cover first, wait for them to throw a nade, then move to the adjacent green cover, I'll be have the upper hand as I'll have lured them into wasting munitions and I'll also be in superior cover. As opposed to moving them into the green cover immediately and trying to fight it out from there.
The purpose of a grenade is to flush troops out from cover (hopefully killing a few in the process). Cover in this game is directional also, which means if a rifle nade lands on the side of the cover your guys are on, that stone wall isn't going to stop those metal fragments.
The only thing grenades add is tactical depth to the game. God forbid you have to click 2, 3, or 4 more times to dodge them.
I have written more about this previously. The point is, cower dosent matter much anymore, so there is little to be gained by flushing enemies out, because the few seconds they spend out of cower really dosent matter that much. This goes both ways. In vCOH, an enemy in green cower would be a serious threat, and charging him through red cower would be costly. In COH2 you just run up to him and throw your grenades, and then you both dance arround for a while.
Understanding and utilising tactics, and the chess aspect of COH becomes, less important, and moving about "casting spells" is more important. Personally, I really liked the tactical depth and realistic twist on combat, and im sad to se the importance of understanding basic tactics toned down. I always enjoied COH because it challenged my mind and strategic abilities, not so much my reflexes and mousemovement, but I guess its a matter of taste. |
I understand your argument but disagree that ability timing and active troop movement is the less interesting mechanical choice. And I feel like no one is really touching any of my core points. "it worked differently in vCoH, I liked it better" is not compelling to me, nor are pleas or contentions that less micro requirements would somehow improve the game.
Timing or movement in itself isnt a problem, those were important aspects of vCOH as well. The problem is that the reduced lethality of infantry has made good use of cower less important, thus encouraging more running arround, charging head on, while givig tactical movement and positioning less impotance.
Its a very different style of gameplay, mowing away from the more realistic aproach of vCOH and more in the direction of "spellcasting" of games we dont wat to compare it with. It shifts the focus from the more chess style stratgic/tactical focus, to the more reflex and speed oriented pinnball kind of play, while none of the games being at any of the extremes of course.
I started playing vCOH while in the army, against others in my squad when we had spare time, and what struck us was how intuitive it all was for us, who had a good understanding of companysized combatoperations, having participated in a lot ourselves. This isnt as true for COH2, and that makes an understanding of basic tactics and those aspects less important, while favouring the "clickers" more.
Im not saying that one path is better than the other, but what I, and obviously a lot of others, seems to preffer. |
OK I tried this long form, but here's the TLDR, in the hopes that I get a more direct response
1. I cannot believe that some people think the micro requirement in this game is too high. Sorry. Compared to SC2 or any MOBA, the mechanical burden of this game is fairly low.
2. I don't see how it's a bad thing that infantry are required to move to stay clear of grenades, aside from COH1 players being upset that it's different from what they've come to expect. Can someone explain this to me?
3. with Mortars, snipers, MGs, AT Guns, and vehicles all placing a much higher premium on positioning than micro (even, I'd contest, Scout Cars and the T70) I feel that it's quite obvious that positioning is important.
I see other issues as being peripheral to the argument.
Also undostrescuatro I don't see how that statement was at all constructive. As someone else in this thread pointed out (I believe?) the grouping/clumping behavior of squads, and their tendency to seek out cover while moving, are major causes of infantry pathing inconsistencies. And Relic has already addressed some of the input delay and units "dancing" when attacked.
I wrote a summary of what I think is the current problem with this games "clickiness" on the previous page. I think it adresses most of your questions.
In short: Tacticly positioning and moving your infantry has been made less important and moving them arround, throwing grenades and using abilities is now more important. Aside from the fact that a lot of people find that a less interesting way of playing it gives the infantrycombat an entirely different and less realistic feal. |
|
While I agree that "gimmicky" units and tactics like cangaroos/clowncars, and that entire slope ruins a lot of the fun, I still found the british somewhat fun to play against. Facing an enemy with well prepared dug in positions really forced you to change gears and adapt to a different mindset.
I wouldnt mind seeing a defensive faction/commander introduced, as long as it fits the game, both gameplaywise and to a certain degree realisticly. |
|
I too preffer a happy and unified community, and I really hope that COH2 one day will become a game that rallies the community and makes vCOH irrelevant, though I dont see that happening anytime soon. As I said, nothing hurts the game as much as being compared to the orginal. |
I find this entire thread to be a bit disingenuous, to be honest. COH2 is a micro-intense clickfest? What? Positioning doesn't matter?
Coming from SC2 and Dota 2, I cannot agree. In SC2, a Gold League Zerg player can easily have 90APM, and due to the artificial way in which units respond to commands, dodging area attacks or splitting units to minimize their impact is a huge part of gameplay (baneling/marine encounters or Colossus vs ... most things). By contrast, in COH2, even an out of position scout car is challenged to get out of the line of fire.
This means that positioning, and not reaction time, is still more important in COH2. Sloppy play (sending that SU85 out on its own for example) is not going to be saved by micro as it could in SC2.
Sure, grenades bring a bit of (welcome IMvHO) micro to a match and perhaps some changes related to cover or damage are needed, but that's separate from COH being a clickfest. You probably don't need more than 40-60APM to play COH2 (maybe a smidge more). I agree with DanielD - 'nades increase the game's skill ceiling and I think that's welcome. Perhaps some rebalancing is needed, but that doesn't mean COH is a "clickfest." Positioning is still of relatively high importance in relation to micro skill compared with SC2 or most other games in the RTS genre.
And I think anyone who feels that microing the handful of squads and vehicles that COH asks of you (no offense) is a burden might want to go play SC2 for a bit for perspective. The dynamics of micro are very different, but I do not feel (as a mediocre at best SC2 player) that COH2 places too much of a micro burden on its players by any stretch of the imagination.
To summarize, I think it's really disingenuous for people to assert that COH2 is too micro heavy, and I don't understand how people are claiming that positioning doesn't matter or that micro is devaluing positioning. Other complaints (re: commanders/doctrines, grenade damage, cover mechanics) I see as related issues, but solvable without lowering the mechanical skill ceiling.
Honestly, with pathing improvements, you'd arguably see the mechanical skill ceiling raised (as troops and vehicles would be more responsive) which would only be good for the game IMvHO.
I agree with you that not all of the feedback in this thread is of the constructive sort, but I think much of the point is that the way infantrycombat works now, positioning really isnt that important. For example: if you had an infantrysquad in green cower, protecting an approach with red cower, any assaulting infantryunit would suffer a lot, and most would have a really hard time winning the battle. In COH2 that dosent really matter all that much, because of the length of combat, and the fact that cower isnt as important anymore. This makes the positioning of your tropps less important, and moving them arround, throwing and dodging grenades all that more important. Take my example above, in COH2 you would probably attack that infantryunit head on and start throwing nades, while in vCOH, embarking on such an assault would leave you verry voulnerable.
I think thats what people think about when they say clickfest in this matter. How dodging and running arround has become more important, and tacticly placing and manouevering your units less important. In addition it makes the combat look really strange, compared to the more realistic firefights of the original. |
"Those good ole Golden Days when everything was better"
To be completely and brutally honest, vCoH didn't break as much new ground as you think.
DoW frankly was the first to come out with many of the developments in RTS that you probably, falsely, attribute to CoH.
Thats where Relic brought evolution to the genre in its most profound sense, because the genre itself was so stagnant and copy/paste at the time.
In DoW (2004), not CoH (2006), which came out later and merely emulated those same advancements.
You are accrediting the wrong game for those genre related progressions.
As far as I am concerned, as related specifically to Relic games, the evolution is clear.
DoW->CoH->DoW2->Coh2.
Each game has incrementally built upon the ground broken by its predecessor, consistently and nigh systematically.
I fully expect a DoW3, eventually, to continue this heritage and line of progression. Almost certainly it will include destructable terrain, a similar objective/resource/VP based MP, Commanders/Doctrines, similar asymmetric pairings between factions, and something resembling the recently introduced Cold-Tech and an even better "True-Sight" system (I would anticipate a unit specific view system, rather than the shared LoS in the current True-Sight").
Its not about "the good old days" but what I believe to be the reason behind some of the tendencies the OP talks and asks about. No need to get all defensive.
I never played DoW that much so youre probably right about that game, but the point stands for the franchise. A lot of players, myself included, was truly blown away by vCOH, while the same really isnt the case for COH2. After all, there is a reason vCOH is "the highest rated RTS ever" and COH2 merely a game receiving decent reviews.
And the problem still stands. COH2 dosent bring much new to the table, though it try to reinvemt some of the mechanics that Relic used many years to perfect in vCOH, while the game lacks a lot of features present in the original COH. Theres not many incentives to not go back to vCOH. To me that seems like the most obvious reasons that the game and the community is in the state it is, and that there really dosent seem to be that much excitement about the game.
Id rather hear others oppinions about that, than strawmen and comments about "the good old days". |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
